What if a non-advisory referendum is held and the NO side boycotts? Shirley that result then doesn't represent the will of the people etc etc etc.
Printable View
Democracy isn’t static. We could have a vote every week if the government in Edinburgh declares it in their manifesto and they gain a majority at Holyrood of like minded MSPs.
It’s utter Bollox that we have to get blessed by Westminster to “allow” such a vote endorsed by the electorate of Scotland.
J
There are other laws governing this. You cant have a stable constitutional settlement if its constantly under review and there is no respect for the rule of law.
If the boot was on the other foot, for example, how would you feel if Scotland voted for independence and Edinburgh and Lothian Councils then had a separate vote that they didnt want to be part of an independent Scotland and wanted to join up with the remainder of the UK? How would you feel if they kept running that until they got the result they wanted? How could any government make any plans.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
If they are elected on that basis then that's it, would be up to the opposition to garner enough support by explaining why it's such a bad idea and why we shouldn't vote for it
It's really straightforward and don't know why people act like there is something underhand going on, the SNP and Greens had it in their manifesto, it's not like they have thrown in a last minute curve ball by stealth
There really aren't. Which is one of the reasons why we *don't* have a stable constitutional settlement.
The main reason though is that it's just too evenly divided. It's difficult to maintain Scotland as a UK region when almost or just over half the population don't want to be part of that state. Likewise, it's difficult to see how you can build a new state when almost or just over half the population don't want to be part of that.
There is a growing movement in England for English independence. A fantastic idea by the way!! I saw a poll recently that of those asked 50% were in favour. This raises two points for me. 1. Who will they ask if they want to leave the union? 2. How will they get round the conundrum that is on one hand saying Scotland is a drain on their resources and on the other explaining that actually without Scotland they would lose billions in finance and what actually keeps their lights on is coming from Scotland so maybe not a great idea.
England would definitely gain in short term fiscal terms from ditching Scotland. You might not believe the minutiae of GERS but it's in the right ballpark.
There are, however, very good reasons for their political class to be against it - a home for nuclear subs and security of energy supply being the main 2. Ultimately, it comes down to international willy waving. The loss of face that comes with a loss of territory is too much for them to stomach. Same thing that motivates Putin, tbh. You would hope they won't use that motivation in quite such a mad ******* way though!
Andrew Marr talking rubbish in the New Statesman
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2022/04/putins-war-could-be-the-undoing-of-nicola-sturgeon
Quote:
The Ministry of Defence has considered, and rejected, sites in south Wales – too near oil and gas installations – and on the southern English coast – too close to busy sea lanes and heavily populated areas.
Aye, especially if you're a low income family with a couple of kids. £20 a week for each kid 6 years old and under changing to 16 years old and rising to £25. When those kids choose to go to Uni that'll be free along with free bus travel, they choose to become nurses so a bursary is incoming with a final salary higher than the rest of the UK, free prescriptions when needed but OMG those ****** ferries.
All of the above are not available south of the border so no child payment, £9k a year plus IIRC 12% interest for uni, no free bus travel, no free prescriptions, no bursary for trainee nurses and a lower salary when qualified. If it's bad up here it's worse down there.
So, the SNP are going to lose a referendum on Scottish independence because England doesn't want to give up its nukes? :confused:
Weird logic in that article, mostly shot through with Marr's wishful thinking. I guess if Britain had done as good a job of Brit-ifying the Scottish population as a whole as it has done with the landed and political elites, there would be no indy movement and we'd all be quiescent North Brits.
I agree. I believe Scotland will be financially worse initially. But that isn't the reason not to independent. Can shake of this vile tory government. Yes there will be Scottish Conservatives, but I think they will have to be more central and will get beat generally.
We'll also have a fairer society. We'll obviously also have massive potential, hopefully inside Europe
I'd think devo max if was actually a thing and not pish spouted by brown, would definitely pass a referendum
Under 16's have had free bus and tram travel in London since 2005. Can't be bothered wae the back and forth, so am just browsing, just pointing this fact out in case you weren't aware. It was brought in to ease congestion on the tubes during rush hour if I recall correctly.
Great policy when it arrived, but they've having difficulty keeping it. TFL getting bailed out by central government, and with Grant Shapps trying to get TFL to remove some of the free journeys for some older kids, it might come under pressure when the Tories come back, and they will.
It's a great policy wherever it's implemented, and I'm delighted the Scottish Government have increased it to Under 22's for the whole Nation.
https://www.cityam.com/tfl-agrees-1-...ort%20operator.
Hope there is a parking charge
George Allison
@geoallison
·
NATO Nuclear submarines from three countries have converged at a naval base near Glasgow in Scotland, near the North Atlantic. There's an American 🇺🇸 Virginia class submarine and a French 🇫🇷 Rubis class submarine in addition to the British 🇬🇧 submarines based there
BBC: Sturgeon accused of 'lie' over ferry contract
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-61306935
So did both lie. I read on here it saved 400 jobs
From that article:-
a spokesman for the first minister said she had been "clearly referring to the 400 people currently employed at the yard".
He added: "Those 400 jobs would not currently exist if the Scottish government had not taken the action we did to save the yard - that is a fact"
I think looking at what is known by us plebs that the yard was put into administration by McColl. Nobody came forward to buy it and the SG stepped in to save it.
According to who you believed it saved either 150 or 350 jobs at the time.
The yard had 5 boats under construction at the time.
I know McColl is accusing sturgeon of lying, but all the information points to him lying. Only time and a public inquiry will tell who lied the most.